MT. VERNON -The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court has denied an attempt to have a guilty plea withdrawn by a defendant who claimed ineffective counsel largely due to conflict of interest.
Thomas Clay Jr. had asked the appellate court to allow him his withdraw his guilty plea to a burglary charge.
Clay claimed his court appointed attorney, James Kelley, had a conflict of interest because the lawyer was involved in the prosecution of the defendant in an earlier case.
In a May 12 judgment authored by Justice David Overstreet, the appellate panel rejected the arguments, including that claim that Clay was pressured into pleading guilty.
The case was first heard in Randolph County Circuit. According to the charges, Clay knowingly and without authority entered a building in Sparta with the intent to commit a theft on June 23, 2017.
"Although the defendant claims on appeal that he was pressured into pleading guilty, the transcript of the plea hearing reflects that the defendant was thoroughly admonished, was given the chance to voice any complaints about Kelley, and replied in the negative when asked if he was in any way forced or pressured into pleading guilty," the appellate court ruled.
According to the appellate panel, the defendant was told that he had an option to remove Kelley and represent himself, but did not do so.
"The circuit court found, and the record supports, that the defendant entered into the guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily," the court stated. "Because we find no ineffective assistance of counsel due to an to an actual conflict of interest, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate guilty plea," Overstreet wrote.
In their decision, the appellate court denied the motion "to vacate guilty plea...where circuit court fulfilled its duty to investigate potential conflict of interest that was brought to its attention early in the proceedings, circuit court applied the correct legal standard in reaching its conclusion, and defendant failed to prove defense counsel operated under an actual conflict of interest."
Justices James "Randy" Moore and Milton Wharton concurred in the ruling.
People v. Clay, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, 180055-U